The "Glenross" v. The "Glenledi"

The "Glenross" v. The "Glenledi"

Both vessels were at fault and should be held equally liable: Glenross breached rule 19 by failing to reduce to bare steerageway when fog signals were heard within four points ahead; Glenledi breached rule 22 by failing to sound the immediate danger signal when in doubt, and the absence of that warning contributed to the collision.

Citation
[1929] SCR 549
Parties
Defendant/appellant: The Ship "Glenross"; Plaintiff/respondent: The Canada Steamship Lines Limited; Plaintiff/appellant: Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Ship "Glenledi"
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 1929
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal (collision) / Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (toronto Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below varied to declare both ships equally liable for the damages caused by the collision.
Legal Topics
Ship Collision, Navigation Rules, Fog Signals, Liability for Collision, Great Lakes Navigation Rules
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Torts Transportation Ship Collision Navigation Rules Fog Signals Liability for Collision +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ship "Glenross"

Defendant/appellant

The Canada Steamship Lines Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

The Ship "Glenledi"

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal (collision) / Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (toronto Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Glenross breached rule 19 by failing to reduce to bare steerageway on hearing fog signals within four points ahead
  2. 2 Whether Glenledi breached rule 22 by failing to sound the danger signal immediately when in doubt as to the other ship's intention
  3. 3 Whether any breach by Glenledi contributed to the collision and absolved Glenross from liability

Ratio Decidendi

Both vessels were at fault and should be held equally liable: Glenross breached rule 19 by failing to reduce to bare steerageway when fog signals were heard within four points ahead; Glenledi breached rule 22 by failing to sound the immediate danger signal when in doubt, and the absence of that warning contributed to the collision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below varied to declare both ships equally liable for the damages caused by the collision.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court varied to declare both the Glenross and the Glenledi equally liable for damages caused by the collision